Hi Pekka,
Let's assume an organization would qualify for e.g., /25 address allocation. When obtaining Internet connectivity, the ISP gives two offers, for example: - 100 EUR/mo for a /27 - 200 EUR/mo for a /25 (otherwise the terms are same, and the technical implementation is the same.)
Well, why not? I for one cannot tell whether maintaining the /25 is more hassle to the ISP than the /27, maybe they have to file an application with RIPE since their AW is too small or whatever. If the organization qualifies for a /25, an audit will only result in "everything's been done properly, the applications are in order", provided the ISP documents their assignments correctly.
2) Charging Policies A Local IR must publish its charging policy. The policy is defined in ripe-152 [Norris96a]: "Address space is a finite resource with no intrinsic value and direct costs cannot be ascribed to it. While they may not charge for address space as such, registries may charge for their administrative and technical ser- vices. Registries must publish their operating procedures and details of the services they offer and the conditions and terms that apply, including scales of tariffs if applicable."
There you are: The ISP is not charging for the adress space, but for its setup, maintenance, reverse delegation, monthly usage checking, whatever... Even if it's undesirable, it's not against the "law". IMHO. Yours, Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---